Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Studies on the therapeutic effect of propolis along with standard antibacterial drug in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infected BALB/c mice

BMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:485

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-016-1474-5

Received: 25 May 2016

Accepted: 21 November 2016

Published: 25 November 2016

The Erratum to this article has been published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2017 17:23

Abstract

Background

Antibiotic resistance is an emerging public health problem. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has described antibiotic resistance as one of the world’s most pressing health problems in 21st century. WHO rated antibiotic resistance as “one of the three greatest threats to human health”. One important strategy employed to overcome this resistance is the use of combination of drugs. Many plants, natural extracts have been shown to exhibit synergistic response with standard drugs against microorganisms. The present study focused on the antibacterial potential of propolis in combination with the standard antibiotic Cefixime against the typhoid causing bacteria i.e. Salmonella.

Methods

Ethanolic extract of propolis was taken for the present work. For the experiment BALB/c mice were taken as animal model and divided into ten groups. Along with normal and infected control groups, four different combinations of cefixime and propolis were used. Biochemical, hematological and histopathological indices were studied by following the standard protocols.

Results

In BALB/c mice, Salmonella causes severe biochemical, hematological and histopathological alterations by 5th day of infection. Ethanolic extract of propolis at a dose of 300 mg/kg body weight of mice when used alone to treat Salmonella infection in mice gave significant results by 30th day of treatment. Similarly, when cefixime (4 mg/kg body weight of mice) was used to treat infection in mice, significant results as compared to infected control were observed after 5th day. But when propolis and cefixime were used together in different concentrations in combination therapy, evident results were observed after 5 days of treatment. The levels of various liver and kidney function enzymes, blood indices and the histopathology of liver, spleen and kidney were restored to near normal after 5 days of treatment and at much lower doses as compared to the effective dose when used alone.

Conclusion

The study confirmed that significant results were observed in three combinations of cefixime and propolis as compared to infected controls. Propolis acted synergistically with cefixime and enhanced the efficacy of antibiotic and reduced its effective dose in combined therapy.

Keywords

SynergyAntibacterialTyphoidPropolisCefixime Salmonella

Background

Salmonella are Gram negative bacteria that have gained importance not only as a threat to public health worldwide but also as a model for studying the mechanisms of bacterial pathogenesis. Primarily two serotypes of Salmonella enterica i.e. Typhi and Paratyphi are responsible for causing typhoid fever in India [1]. Typhoid fever and gastroenteritis are the principal clinical syndromes associated with Salmonella. Typhoid occurs in various parts of the world like Asia, South America, Middle East, Zimbabwe, India, Florida, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, Nigeria and many more [2, 3].

Every year around 21 million cases of typhoid fever are reported worldwide [4]. The identified risk factors include intake of street food, ice creams, contaminated water, poor sanitary conditions at home and excessive use of antimicrobial drugs [5]. The commonly used therapy against typhoid is the use of antimicrobials like some fluoroquinolones, cephalosporins, azalides. One such cephalosporin is Cefixime which acts by penetrating into the monocytes and causes morphological changes and growth inhibition of S. typhimurium. Because of increasing multi drug resistance (MDR) there is a worrisome possibility of recurrence of untreatable typhoid [6]. Studies favoring the use of different biologically active natural products for the treatment of serious ailments are now being emphasized.

Honey bee propolis has attracted the interest of scientists and researchers on account of its remarkable pharmacological and biological properties. It is a very sticky, resinous substance which is collected by honey bees from the barks and buds of plants. It is mixed with saliva, some enzymes and used by bees to seal the walls of hive to ensure a hygienic environment [7]. Propolis acts as a “Chemical Weapon” for the bees protecting them from the attack of small insects and microorganisms. Bees set an example of maintaining such a naturally sterile home. Research has been done to demonstrate the antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, antioxidant and other biological activities of propolis [8]. Various clinical studies are in progress to verify the preventive and therapeutic potential of propolis as an antibiotic alone as well as synergistically.

Salmonella species cause infection ranging from asymptomatic carriage and localized gastroenteritis to systemic enteric fever [9]. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium causes an invasive disease in mice that has similarity with human typhoid. Moreover, animals are the best suited models for the development or authentication of any new drug or the characterization of a new drug. Out of different strains of mice, BALB/c strain is the most susceptible mouse lineage to study the pathogenesis of the disease. Mutated Nramp 1 gene is responsible for the susceptibility [10]. Mice having typhoid showed signs like elevated temperature, ruffled fur, lethargic behavior. Therefore, BALB/c mice were selected as animal model for the present study.

The present study is a step to support the use of propolis as a “global remedy”. This study aims to evaluate propolis as a potential strategy to fight the problem of MDR by using it in a combination therapy whereby two drugs are used together against a disease. This therapy helps to reduce the dose of the synthetic antimicrobial if the second component is an effective natural product that has ameliorative/curative properties. Plants and other natural sources are being extensively exploited in this direction.

Methods

Collection of propolis and preparation of extracts

Propolis was obtained from honey bee hives kept in an apiary maintained by Department of Zoology, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. Ethanolic extract was prepared by following standard protocol as it gave the best results in previous studies [8]. 30 g of propolis was ground and 70% ethanol was added to make a total volume of 100 mL. The components were mixed, kept away from bright light, at room temperature and with moderate shaking. After 5 to7 days the solution was filtered and dried. Propolis was stored in a dry and cool place (freezer) after extraction. The percentage yield of propolis was calculated by the formula:
$$ \mathrm{Percentage}\ \mathrm{yield}\ \left(\%\right)=\frac{Amount\ of\ pure\ product\ recovered}{Amount\ of\ crude\ material\ used}\times 100 $$

Specific dilutions of propolis were then prepared as required.

Microorganism

The bacterial strain of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (MTCC 98) was procured from IMTECH, Sector-39, Chandigarh and stored in the form of small aliquots at −20 °C before subculturing. The strain was examined biochemically before storage and use.

Experimental animal model

White swiss mice of BALB/c strain (weighing 25–28 g and 4–6 weeks old) of either sex were used as experimental model. Mice were obtained from Central Animal House, Panjab University, Chandigarh. The animals were maintained in lab in animal house of Panjab University at 25 ± 2 °C temperature under 12 hr light/dark cycle. The treatment of the mice was according to the guidelines of committee for the purpose of control and supervision of experiments on animals and was approved by Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC/411 dated 11/9/2013) of Panjab University, Chandigarh. All the animals were housed in polypropylene cages and fed with a standard pellet diet (Ashirwad industries, Punjab, Hindustan Lever, India) and water ad libitum.

Study design

Mice were segregated into ten groups, with 6 mice in each group as follows: Gp Normal: Normal mice given saline orally (negative control). Gp Infected: Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infected: Mice given 2X104 CFU/mL of Salmonella (0.2 mL) once i.p. (positive control). Gp OC: Only cefixime [4 mg/kg body weight of mice (b.w.)] treated groups without infection for 5 days. Gp OP: Only propolis (300 mg/kg b.w.) treated groups without infection for 30 days. Gp C: Salmonella infected + 4 mg Cefixime /kg b.w.: Mice were given antibiotic cefixime for 5 days (orally). Gp P: Salmonella infected + propolis at the dose of 300 mg/kg b.w. for 30 days. Gp CP1: Salmonella infected + Combination of cefixime and propolis (3 mg/kg b.w. + 225 mg/kg b.w.) respectively given orally. Gp CP2: Salmonella infected + Combination of cefixime and propolis (3 mg/kg b.w +150 mg/kg b.w.). Gp CP3: Salmonella infected + Combination of cefixime and propolis (2 mg/kg b.w. + 225 mg/kg b.w.). Gp CP4: Salmonella infected + Combination of cefixime and propolis (2 mg/kg b.w. + 150 mg/kg b.w.). Mice were given combination for 5 days orally after infection. Animal sacrifices were made after the completion of treatment.

Bacterial load

The bacterial loads in blood, liver, spleen and kidney of mice were determined by following the standard protocols [11].

Biochemical studies

Blood was aspirated from jugular vein of mice of different experimental groups and kept at room temperature for 20 mins. It was then centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 mins. to obtain the serum. All the marker tests were performed by using commercially available kits.

Hematological studies

Appropriate quantities of blood samples were collected from the jugular vein of mice in sodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) for estimation of red blood cell count (RBC), hemoglobin concentration (Hb), packed cell volume (PCV), total leucocyte count (TLC). Mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) were also calculated [12].

Histopathological studies

In order to investigate pathological changes in the selected tissues of experimental animals, histological studies were performed. For these studies animals were dissected and different tissues like liver, kidney and spleen were taken from normal, infected and treated mice. The tissues were rinsed in normal saline, weighed, fixed and then further processed by following the standard protocol [13, 14].

Statistical analysis

Data were expressed as mean ± S.D. All experiments were repeated thrice. The statistical significance of inter group difference of biochemical parameters and microbial counts was determined by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using Tukey test. Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 and highly significant at p < 0.001.

Results

Yield of propolis extract

The principal solvents used for extraction of bioactive compounds from crude propolis (30 g) was ethanol. The weight of propolis extracted and percentage yield from ethanol was 7.019 g and 57.2% respectively.

This present study was an attempt to test propolis, a natural product of the bee hive, for its antimicrobial effect in combination with cefixime against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Concentrations used in combination were decided on the basis of best results obtained in monotherapy experiments. The best dose obtained in monotherapy experiments was 300 mg/kg b.w. of propolis [9]. Concentrations of propolis used for present experiments were ¾ and ½ of the best dose i.e. 225 mg and 150 mg respectively. Similarly the concentration of cefixime for combination experiments were ¾ and ½ of 4 mg i.e. 3 mg and 2 mg respectively.

Survival percentage

The number of animals that survived after treatment with different combinations of propolis and cefixime substantiates the aim of study. In the infected group (without treatment) 94.94 ± 9.62% survival was recorded on 5th day of infection. However animals presented signs of weakness, lean body, lethargic behavior and hunched back. Fifth day was the peak day of infection as revealed by the analysis of bacterial count in blood during the experiment. After 5th day no survival was observed in Infected group. In combination treatment groups 100% survival was recorded in CP1, CP2 and CP3 group whereas in case CP4, the survival percentage was the same as infected mice after 5 days of treatment (Table 1). Since in case of propolis treated group (P), effective results were seen by 30th day of propolis treatment so the survival percentage was recorded till last day of treatment i.e. 30th day. In the follow up study (30 days after the end of treatment), survival percentage of all groups was recorded.
Table 1

Percentage survival of animals

Groups

Percentage (%) Survival of animals

At start of treatment

End of treatment

Follow up

Normal

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

Infected

100 ± 0

94.94 ± 9.62

NS

OC

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

OP

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

C

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

P

100 ± 0

77.53 ± 9.98

77.53 ± 9.98

CP1

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

CP2

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

CP3

100 ± 0

100 ± 0

NS

CP4

100 ± 0

94.94 ± 9.62

NS

Data is expressed as mean ± SD (n = 6), NS: No mice survived

Bacterial load in blood and different organs

These studies were conducted over a period of five days.

Blood: The bacterial count in the blood was observed to be 6.57 ± 0.15 log CFU/mL at 120 hrs. after infection. In case of only cefixime and only propolis treated groups significant decline in count was observed. On treating with different combinations of propolis and cefixime it was found that in case of CP1, CP2 and CP3 there was significant decrease in bacterial count (Table 2).
Table 2

Bacterial load in blood of mice after Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection and during the course of treatment in combination therapy

Time

0–4 h

4–8 h

8–12 h

12–24 h

72 h

120 h

Groups

Infected

4.16 ± 0.14

5.46 ± 0.07

4.57 ± 0.06

4.47 ± 0.1

5.34 ± 0.14

6.57 ± 0.15

C

4.25 ± 0.15

4.86 ± 0.19

3.64 ± 0.3

3.07 ± 0.005

2.57 ± 0.2#

0#^

P

4.27 ± 0.18

4.34 ± 0.25

4.21 ± 0.31

4.12 ± 0.17

3.5 ± 0.46

3.36 ± 0.25#@

CP1

4.34 ± 0.15

4.5 ± 0.19

4.1 ± 0.30

3.36 ± 0.005

3.51 ± 0.2

2.15 ± 0#@

CP2

4.57 ± 0.11

4.34 ± 0.26

4.21 ± 0.18

4.12 ± 0.48

3.5 ± 0.19

3.12 ± 0.18#@

CP3

4.27 ± 0.18

4.34 ± 0.25

4.21 ± 0.31

4.12 ± 0.17

3.5 ± 0.46

3.36 ± 0.25#@

CP4

4.54 ± 0.06

5.53 ± 0.39

5.86 ± 0.17

5.47 ± 0.19

4.34 ± 0.06

4.24 ± 0.13@

Data is expressed as mean ± SD

#p value Infected vs C, P, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4

@p-value C vs P, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4

^p-value P vs C, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4

(*@^p < 0.05: statistically significant), (#p < 0.001: statistically very significant)

In case of bacterial load in organs like liver, spleen and kidney again significant decline in bacterial load as compared to infected control was observed in CP1, CP2 and CP3 group (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Histogram showing the bacterial load in different organs of mice after Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection and treatment in combination groups. Data is expressed as mean ± SD. #p-value Infected liver vs treated liver, *p-value Infected spleen vs treated spleen. $p-value Infected kidney vs treated kidney. @p-value C vs P, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4. ^p-value P vs C, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4. (@^p < 0.05), (#*$p < 0.001)

Biochemical studies

The levels and activities of various enzymes to assess the functioning of liver and kidney were estimated in serum of different groups of mice.

Liver and kidney function tests

The estimation of Alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/ serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase (SGPT), Aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/ serum glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase (SGOT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), bilirubin was done in serum samples by using commercially available kits. The levels of AST, ALT, bilirubin and ALP were increased in infected group as compared to normal group. On giving treatment of combination of cefixime and propolis significant decrease was observed in CP1, CP2, CP3 groups, showing the effectiveness of these combination. Similarly in case of kidney function tests the level of urea, uric acid, creatinine and uric acid was increased in case of infected control but a significant decline was observed in combination 1, 2 and 3 (Table 3).
Table 3

Results of liver, kidney function tests and levels of protein and glucose in the serum of experimental groups

Group

ALT

(IU/L)

AST

(IU/L)

ALP

(KA units)

Bilirubin

(mg/dL)

Urea

(mg/dL)

BUN

(mg/dL)

Uric Acid

(mg/dL)

Creatinine

(mg/dL)

T. Protein

(g/dL)

Glucose

(mg/dL)

Normal

21.4 ± 0.87

25.97 ± 1.04

8.57 ± 0.73

0.85 ± 0.12

43.26 ± 0.9

19.89 ± 0.41

3.03 ± 0.2

0.38 ± 0.056

6.93 ± 0.23

133.33 ± 6.67

Infected

140.57 ± 1.27$

94.03 ± 3.5$

28.33 ± 1.52$

2.2 ± 0.17$

82.76 ± 5.68$

38.07 ± 2.6$

6.26 ± 0.25$

0.78 ± 0.02$

5.2 ± 0.4$

108.33 ± 3.85$

OC

19.76 ± 0.60

25.5 ± 1.44

8.66 ± 0.57

0.72 ± 0.035

44.5 ± 1.80

20.47 ± 0.82

4.93 ± 0.11

0.34 ± 0.02

6.95 ± 0.23

135.56 ± 3.85

OP

35.43 ± 4.9

19.66 ± 0.57

7.66 ± 0.5

0.74 ± 0.04

43.86 ± 1.62

20.49 ± 0.88

3 ± 0.1

0.3 ± 0.02

6.533 ± 0.23

135.55 ± 3.85

C

23.3 ± 2.23#

26.44 ± 3.23#

8.77 ± 0.36#

0.66 ± 0.06#

43.86 ± 1.62#

20.49 ± 0.88#

3 ± 0.1#

0.34 ± 0.01#

6.76 ± 0.05#

135.55 ± 3.85#

P

51.46 ± 3.1#

35.43 ± 4.9#

15.2 ± 2.85#

0.7 ± 0.04#

52.7 ± 2.94#

24.23 ± 1.35#

4.24 ± 0.41#

0.41 ± 0.02#

7.06 ± 0.23#

131.1 ± 3.85#

CP1

22.33 ± 0.57#^

27.33 ± 3.05#

8.72 ± 0.42#

0.66 ± 0.06#

44.5 ± 1.8#

20.47 ± 0.82#

3.03 ± 0.05#

0.3 ± 0.01#

6.77 ± 0.04#

137.77 ± 3.85#

CP2

23.3 ± 2.23#^

33.32 ± 2.88 #

10.33 ± 2.88#

0.66 ± 0.02*@

43.96 ± 1.76#^

20.22 ± 0.81#^

3.16 ± 0.15#@

0.39 ± 0.04#

7.06 ± 0.23#

133.11 ± 7#

CP3

88.57 ± 3.9#@^

51.73 ± 2.82 #@^

17.86 ± 1.76#@

0.83 ± 0.03#

65.3 ± 4.65#@^

30.03 ± 2.14#@^

5.2 ± 0.43@

0.69 ± 0.01*@^

5.86 ± 0.46@^

111.1 ± 3.85@^

CP4

139.67 ± 0.58@^

93.1 ± 2.07@^

27.33 ± 0.57@^

2.1 ± 0.17@^

79.66 ± 0.57@^

36.64 ± 0.26@^

5.9 ± 0.17@^

0.71 ± 0.02@^

5.06 ± 0.23@^

108.88 ± 3.85@^

Data is expressed as mean ± SD. (ANOVA: Tukey test)

$p-value Normal vs Infected, OC, OP (p < 0.001: statistically very significant)

*#p-value Infected vs C, P, CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4

@p-value C vs P, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4

^p-value P vs C, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4

(*@^p < 0.05: statistically significant), ($#p < 0.001: statistically very significant)

Hematological studies

Hematological indices provide very important information regarding the well being of an individual. The results showed alterations in infected control as compared to normal ones. After treatment with different combinations of cefixime and propolis the values were restored near normal (Table 4).
Table 4

Results of hematological indices in the blood of experimental groups

Group

RBC

(million/mm3)

TLC/mm3

Hb

(g/dL)

PCV

(%)

MCV

μm3

MCH

(pg)

MCHC

(%)

Normal

8.36 ± 1.2

7730 ± 170.88

12.48 ± 0.66

42 ± 1

48.83 ± 3.85

13.68 ± 1.88

29.27 ± 0.82

Infected

4.37 ± 0.95$

5766.66 ± 28.86$

9.06 ± 0.11$

28 ± 1$

64.17 ± 0.14$

21.02 ± 0.75$

34.13 ± 3.89$

OC

6.90 ± 0.70

7669.33 ± 111.26

12.31 ± 0.15

41.66 ± 1.52

53.63 ± 5.94

17.72 ± 2.13

33.01 ± 0.50

OP

8.06 ± 0.66

7348.33 ± 47.52$

12.6 ± 0.55

44 ± 1.73

53.49 ± 3.79

14.82 ± 1.23

28.68 ± 1.35

C

7.76 ± 0.58*

7563 ± 32.14#

11.56 ± 0.4#

40.33 ± 0.57#

52.12 ± 3.84*

15.89 ± 3.26#

28.68 ± 1.35#

P

8.06 ± 0.66*

7348.33 ± 47.52#

12.6 ± 0.55#

44 ± 1.73#

53.49 ± 3.79*

14.82 ± 1.23#

28.69 ± 2.3*

CP1

8 ± 0.95*

7091.66 ± 141.8#

12.4 ± 0.3#

40.5 ± 2.45#

53.84 ± 6.03*

15.59 ± 1.58#

30.7 ± 2.2*

CP2

7.59 ± 0.45*

7073.33 ± 110.15#@^

13.5 ± 0.82#

40.2 ± 2.1#

53.2 ± 6.01*

17.64 ± 2.16

30.93 ± 0.05*

CP3

6.46 ± 0.05

6903.33 ± 41.63#@^

11.1 ± 0.1*

33.26 ± 2.58*@^

51.41 ± 3.55*

17.16 ± 0.21

33.49 ± 2.76

CP4

4.6 ± 0.69@^

5885 ± 186.21@^

10.7 ± 0.34@^

28.83 ± 0.57@^

62.9 ± 1.96

20.41 ± 1.28

33.59 ± 0.57

Data is expressed as mean ± SD. (ANOVA : Tukey test)

$p-value Normal vs Infected, OC, OP (p < 0.001: statistically very significant)

*#p-value Infected vs C, P, CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4

@p-value C vs P, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4

^p-value P vs C, CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP4

(*@^p < 0.05: statistically significant), ($#p < 0.001: statistically very significant)

Along with comparison of treatment groups with infected control, the effect of cefixime and propolis was compared with different combinations to understand whether the combination was effective because of effect of cefixime. By making the comparison it was observed that most of the indices of CP1 group showed no significant difference as compared to cefixime or propolis. This suggests that the effectiveness was due to action of both the antibiotic and propolis.

Histopathological studies

The histopathological analysis of different organs of all experimental groups was done with the aim to determine the curative effect of honey bee propolis in combination with standard antibiotic cefixime against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection in BALB/c mice.

Liver

The transverse section of normal liver showed hepatic lobules consisting of large polygonal cells, the hepatocytes arranged radially around the central vein (Plate I: a, b and c). In case of infected control, the haematoxylin and eosin stained sections of infected liver showed prominent infiltration of lymphocytes (Plate I: d), dilated sinusoids, Kupffer cells and lymphocytes were seen in dilated sinusoids. Hepatocyte degeneration, destruction, microvesicular fatty changes, acute liver necrosis, fairly heavy lobular hepatitis (Plate I: e) and chronic portal triaditis (Plate I: f) were also observed. Formation of localized clusters of lymphocytes which resulted in formation of typical “typhoidal nodules” was observed. In cefixime treated liver of mice, no significant pathological changes were observed after the completion of treatment period and the cytoarchitecture was similar to that of normal liver with prominent hepatic cords radiating outwards from central vein. Haematoxylin and eosin stained transverse section of group P showed almost regular liver histology. The histology of liver of mice treated for 5 days with combinations revealed regular hepatic architecture. Polyhedral hepatocytes were radiating outwards from central vein. No infiltration of lymphocytes was observed in CP1, CP2 and CP3 (Plate II: a, b, c and d). In case of CP4, histology of liver included lymphocytic infiltration and vacuolization, distorted portal triad showing the ineffectiveness of this combination as compared to other treatments (Plate II: e and f).
Plate I

Haematoxylin and eosin stained transverse sections of liver of normal (a, b, c) and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infected BALB/c mice (d, e, f)

Plate II

Haematoxylin and Eosin stained transverse sections of liver of combination therapy groups CP1 (a), CP2 (b and c), CP3 (d), CP4 (e and f)

Spleen

Spleen is a blood filter and a highly vascular organ. Light microscopic studies of spleen showed normal morphology having white and red pulp region separated by the marginal zone. (Plate III: a, b and c). Infected spleen showed changes in the form of non follicular diffused enlargement of white pulp and reduction of red pulp region commonly known as non follicular lymphoid hyperplasia. Infected spleen showed the reactive enlargement of follicles and increase in the number of follicles (Plate III: d, e and f). Transverse section of cefixime treated spleen and propolis (300 mg) treated spleen showed normal structural organization. Combination of cefixime and propolis in CP1, did not allow the alterations in spleen to occur Plate IV: a). The histology of spleen of mice treated with combined dose of cefixime and propolis (CP2, CP3) for 5 days showed normal splenic architecture. Red pulp was clearly visible. Normal white pulp having follicles, PALS and marginal zone was clear (Plate IV: b, c and d). No improvement was seen in spleen of CP4 group. Neither red nor the white pulp was clear in spleen. Hyperplasia was observed in CP group and there was complete distortion of marginal zone (Plate IV: e and f).
Plate III

Haematoxylin and eosin stained transverse sections of spleen of normal (a, b, c) and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infected BALB/c mice (d, e, f)

Plate IV

Haematoxylin and Eosin stained transverse sections of spleen of combination therapy groups CP1 (a), CP2 (b), CP3 (c and d), CP4 (e and f)

Kidney

Histological examination of a normal BALB/c mice kidney revealed typical general organization with outer cortex and inner medulla region. Cortex region consisted of small spherical bodies called renal corpuscles which showed 2 parts i.e. glomerulus and Bowman’s capsule. The medullary region consisted of renal pyramids (Plate V: a, b, c) The effect of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection was not as severe as in the reticuloendothelial organs (liver and spleen). The architecture of infected kidney appeared normal at low magnification. At higher magnification, histology showed excessive lymphocytic infiltration on 5th day of infection (Plate V: d, e, f). Histology of cefixime (C) and propolis (P) treated mice kidney revealed normal structural organization with distinguishable cortical and medullary regions. Normal renal corpuscles were evident. Proximal and distal convoluted tubules were clearly distinguishable. The histological studies of combination groups clearly indicated signs of recovery in case of CP1, CP2 and CP3 (Plate VI: a, b, c, d and e). The architecture was restored to normal showing distinct Bowman’s capsule, glomerulus, mesangial space, PCT and DCT. The kidney histology of animals in CP4 group was more like infected mice with lymphocytic infiltration in kidney (Plate VI: f). However the impact of Salmonella infection was more in liver and spleen as compared to kidney.
Plate V

Haematoxylin and eosin stained transverse sections of kidney of normal (a, b, c) and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infected BALB/c mice (d, e, f)

Plate VI

Haematoxylin and Eosin stained transverse sections of kidney of combination therapy groups CP1 (a and b), CP2 (c and d), CP3 (e), CP4 (f)

Discussion

In an effort to improve the quality of life, man has often turned to plants as source of food, clothing, shelter and home remedies. Plants contain certain active substances that are responsible for rendering them their medicinal properties. Plants products have therefore found extensive use in traditional methods of treatment. Pharmaceutical industry produces a number of drugs with quick and lasting treatment effects. But the increasing resistance against these drugs in the present scenario has diverted the focus to some natural products or extracts which can replace or supplement modern medicine.

Survival is the first and foremost noticed factor in any experiment. In the present study 100% survival was observed in groups CP1, CP2, CP3 at the end of treatment regimen as compared to infected control. Previous studies confirmed that infection with Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in mice caused mortality in 5–7 days [15]. The mortality could be due to severe effect of Salmonella infection on vital organs as well as on physiological parameters. Treatment with natural extracts like that of Withania somnifera, Houttuynia cordata, peel extract of Punica granatum was shown to increase the survival rate as compared to infected mice [16, 17].

As observed in the present study, the infected mice showed heavy bacterial loads in different organs. However, a significant reduction in bacterial load was observed in combination treated mice. Earlier investigations showed the use of propolis against bacteria of human infections, and also reported that lower concentrations of propolis were effective against Gram positive bacteria but higher doses had to be used against Gram negative bacteria [18]. Several authors observed that the biological activities of propolis were due to the presence of various phytochemicals [8, 1922]. Studies confirmed that phenolic acid components present in propolis caused inhibition of microbial enzymes thus depriving the microorganism. The various biological activities of propolis including the antibacterial property were due to the presence of flavonoids, CAPE, esters as supported by the findings of many researchers. It was proved that a single component of propolis was not as effective as the total extract, which further supported that synergism existed in various compounds of propolis to make effective biological impact [23]. On the other hand, the effectiveness of cefixime was due to its reasonable penetration into the monocytes thus inhibiting the growth of bacteria [24].

In the present study, during combination trials, a synergistic behavior of propolis with cefixime was observed which further facilitated the activity of cefixime and reduced its dose. Though the exact mechanism of action of synergistic effect is not yet known, the synergy might be due to some complex formation which inhibited the microorganisms by interfering with its cell wall synthesis or by lysing the cell and thus causing death of microorganism or by making the bacterial cell wall more permeable [25]. Both cefixime and propolis complemented each other’s activity during the present study. It is known that even if a bioactive substance has little activity against causative agent, it will assist the major active component in its action against bacteria (pharmacokinetic synergy) [5]. In previous studies propolis has been used in combination with chloramphenicol, tetracycline and neomycin against S. typhi in vitro [26]. The results supported that ½ and ¼ MIC of propolis when used in combination with the antibiotic was able to reduce the log count of bacteria. Synergistic effect of propolis with tetracycline was also observed against S. aureus [27].

In the present experiment, to assess the damage caused to liver by Salmonella, the levels and concentrations of enzymes and macromolecules like AST, ALT, ALP, bilirubin were measured. These enzyme molecules are present in hepatocytes in normal individual. The raised levels of these in blood gives clear indication of some hepatic damage. Hepatic injury could be caused by endotoxins, non specific reactive inflammation or some cytotoxins produced by bacteria that have infected Kupffer cells [28]. Previous studies reported the hepatoprotective effect of ethanolic extract of propolis [29, 30]. Propolis showed inhibitory activity against oedema, leakage, conglomeration in case of inflammations that were caused due to microorganism infiltration or toxins or any injury [3134]. Damage to the liver was reduced when treated with different doses of propolis in the present study. Propolis has been observed to act as a strong antioxidant agent and hence as a scavenger of free radicals [35]. It has been suggested that the hepatic preventive activity of propolis was because it suppressed the leakage of enzyme through plasma membrane of cells [36]. Propolis could also cause the repair of damaged cell wall of hepatocytes and increase their functional properties [37, 38].

The levels of some kidney enzymes were raised in infected group which were restored to near normal values after treatment with cefixime – propolis combination. Increase or decrease in some indices might be due to hampered glomerular filtration of urea and creatinine [3941].

Blood is considered as an essential body fluid that regulates the various vital functions of the body such as transport of nutrients, gases and protection against invaders. Hematological indices provide very important information regarding the well being of an individual [42]. Typhoid fever causes a lot of hematological disturbances which include anemia, leucopenia, eosinophilia [43, 44]. In the present study, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection significantly decreased the mean levels of RBC, Hb, PCV. According to earlier studies [45] haemophagocytosis and bone marrow suppression were responsible for hematological changes White blood cells are the cells of immune system that help in protecting the body against foreign intruders. Any alteration in the WBC count acts as an indicator of disease. Significant decrease in the WBC count in typhoid mice was observed when compared with healthy control and these results were supported by the earlier findings [46, 47] which showed leucopenia in 4% of the total typhoid cases. The results of all treatments except CP4 showed significantly different results as compared to infected control. The polyphenolic compounds present in propolis and other bee products have protective effect for the RBC cell membrane [15, 48, 49]. The components of propolis like cinnamic derivatives and some flavonoids caused the loss of membrane potential due to the increase in permeability of bacterial membrane to ions and this altered the bioenergetic state of microorganism [50].

Histological studies during the present study showed that during typhoid, reticuloendothelial organs were mainly involved [51]. Previous studies have reported that mice infected with Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium showed signs of histological damage [52]. Combination therapy in groups CP1, CP2 and CP3 was found safe on the hepatic architecture of mice. Earlier studies confirmed that with the help of treatment with propolis the multifocal nephritic changes in liver were completely reversed showing its effectiveness [53]. In case of spleen, various researchers showed multifocal histiocytic infiltration, lymphoid follicular disruption and thrombosis which resembled the pathology of people having haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis [54]. In kidney, the findings by various researchers [17] confirmed that Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium caused negligible architectural changes. Mice treated with propolis and cefixime both singly as well as in combination showed signs of recovery. Moreover, previous studies by authors concluded that propolis has no negative effect if consumed directly and hence no toxicity was reported till the consumption of 5 mg/kg b.w. of propolis by mice [55]. The overall results of the present work provide baseline information for the possible use of the ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP) in the treatment of salmonellosis, especially typhoid fever.

Conclusion

From the present experiments it is clear that the combination therapy of cefixime and propolis (CP1 group) is most effective against Salmonella infection as it not only reduced the doses of the two components but also showed significant results after five days of treatment which was also supported by the follow up studies. However, more studies are required to test the combination in higher animal models before it is applied in typhoid patients. The challenge to look for some alternatives for the treatment of deadly typhoid is imperative due to increasing MDR. The need is to explore/ extract active constituents from propolis and then use these in combination with standard antibiotics to reduce their doses and improve efficacy without developing MDR or any side effects.

Notes

Abbreviations

ALP: 

Alkaline phosphatase

ALT: 

Alanine transaminase

AST: 

Aspartate transaminase

b.w: 

Body weight

CAPE: 

Caffeic acid phenyl ethyl ester

CFU: 

Colony forming units

DCT: 

Distal convoluted tubules

DLC: 

Differential leucocyte count

EDTA: 

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

Hb: 

Haemoglobin

i.p.: 

Intraperitonial

MCH: 

Mean corpuscular haemoglobin

MCHC: 

Mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration

MCV: 

Mean corpuscular volume

MDR: 

Multi Drug Resistance

PALS: 

Periarterial lymphatic sheaths

PCT: 

Proximal convoluted tubules

PCV: 

Packed cell volume

RBC: 

Red blood cell count

rpm: 

Rotations per minute

SGOT: 

Serum glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase

SGPT: 

Serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase

TLC: 

Total leucocyte count

Declarations

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Department of Science and Technology (DST) for their assistance at various stages of this research work through INSPIRE fellowship and DST FIST for infrastructural facilities.

Funding

Financial support from Department of Science and Technology, India in the form of INSPIRE fellowship (IF10124) to the first author.

Availability of data and materials

All the data and materials are contained and described within the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

PK had done the practical research work and manuscript writing. NRK and KH are supervisors who guided the experimental work and the writing of manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publications

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

The treatment of the mice was according to the guidelines of committee for the purpose of control and supervision of experiments on animals and was approved by Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC/411 dated 11/9/2013) of Panjab University, Chandigarh.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Zoology, Panjab University
(2)
Department of Microbiology, Panjab University

References

  1. Chandel DS, Chaudhry R, Dhawan B, Pandey A, Dey AB. Drug-resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Paratyphi A in India. Emerg Infect Dis. 2000;6:420–1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Crump J, Mintz E. Global trends in typhoid and paratyphoid fever. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:241–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Reddy S, Rangaiah J, Addiman S, Wareham D, Wison P, Sefton A. Epidemiology, antibiotic resistance trends and the cost of enteric fever in East-London: 2005–2010. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2011;9(4):206–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Crump JA, Luby SP, Mintz ED. The global burden of typhoid fever. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:346–53.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chidozie VN, Adoga GI. Potentiating effect of aqueous leaf extract of Anogeissus leiocarpus on Carica papaya aqueous leaf extract and Mangifera indica aqueous stem bark extract - A herbal product used against typhoid fever in Nigeria. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2014;3(10):1046–62.Google Scholar
  6. Mirza SH, Beeching NJ, Hart CA. Multi drug resistant typhoid fever, a global problem. J Med Microbiol. 1996;44:317–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hendi NKK, Naher HS, Al-Charrakh AH. In vitro antibacterial and antifungal activity of Iraqi propolis. J Med Plant Res. 2011;5(20):5058–66.Google Scholar
  8. Kalia P, Kumar NR, Harjai K. Phytochemical screening and antibacterial activity of different extracts of propolis. Int J Pharma Biol Res. 2013;3(6):219–22.Google Scholar
  9. Rubin, R H and Weinstein L. Salmonellosis. In: Stratton microbiologic, pathogenic and clinical features. Int Medical Book Corp publs; 1977. p. 137–145.Google Scholar
  10. Sebastiani G, Blais V, Sancho V, Vogel SN, Stevenson MM, Gros P, Lapointe JM, Rivest S, Danielle MD. Host immune response to Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium infection in mice derived from wild strains. Infect Immun. 2002;70(4):1997–2009.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalia P, Kumar NR, Harjai K. The therapeutic potential of propolis against damage caused by Salmonella typhimurium in mice liver: A biochemical and histological study. Arch Biol Sci. 2015;67(3):807–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalia P, Kumar NR, Harjai K. Effect of propolis extract on the haematotoxicity and histological changes induced by Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium in BALB/c mice. Arch Biol Sci. 2016;68(2):385–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Pearse AGE. Histochemistry: theoretical and applied. 3rd ed. Boston: Little Brown and Co; 1968.Google Scholar
  14. Baker JR. Cytological technique. 2nd ed. London: Methuen publs; 1945.Google Scholar
  15. Kim GS, Kim DH, Lim JJ, Lee JJ, Han DY, Lee WM, et al. Biological and antibacterial activities of the natural herb Houttuynia Cordata water extract against the intracellular bacterial pathogen Salmonella within the RAW 264.7 macrophage. Biol Pharm Bull. 2008;31(11):2012–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Owais M, Sharad KS, Shehbaz A, Saleemuddin M. Antibacterial efficacy of Withania somnifera (ashwagandha) an indigenous medicinal plant against experimental murine salmonellosis. Phytomed. 2005;12:229–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Choi JG, Kang OK, Lee YS, Chae HS, Oh YC, Brice OO. In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activity of Punica granatum peel ethanol extract against Salmonella. Evid based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:8. Article ID 690518. doi:10.1093/ecam/nep105.
  18. Sforcin JM, Fernandes JRA, Lopes CAM, Bankova V, Funari SRC. Seasonal effect on Brazilian propolis antibacterial activity. J Ethnopharmacol. 2000;73:243–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Boyanova L, Gergova G, Nikolov R, Derejian S, Lazarova E, Katsarov N. Activity of Bulgarian propolis against 94 Helicobacter pyroli strains in vitro by agar well diffusion, agar dilution and disc diffusion methods. J Med Micro. 2005;54(5):481–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Bankova V, Christova R, Kujumgiev A, Marcucci MC, Popov S. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of Brazilian propolis. Z Naturforsch. 1995;50:167–75.Google Scholar
  21. Bankova V, Christova R, Popov S, Pureb O, Bocari G. Volatile constituents of propolis. Z Naturforsch. 1994;49:6–10.Google Scholar
  22. Hegazi AG, Abd-El-Hady F. Egyptian propolis: antioxidant, antimicrobial, activities and chemical composition of propolis from reclaimed lands. Z Naturforsch. 2002;57:395–402.Google Scholar
  23. Scheller S, Dworniczak S, Klimmek KW, Rajca M, Tomczyk A, Shani J. Synergism between ethanolic extract of propolis (EEP) and anti tuberculosis drugs on growth of Mycobacteria. Z Naturforsch. 1999;54:549–53.Google Scholar
  24. Matsumoto Y, Ikemota A, Wakai Y, Ikeda F, Tawara S, Matsumoto K. Mechanism of therapeutic effectiveness of cefixime against typhoid fever. Antimicrob Agent Chemother. 2001;45(9):2450–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Chanda S, Rakholiya K. Combination Therapy: Synergism between natural plant extracts and antibiotics against infectious diseases. In: A. Mendez- Vilas, editors. Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances. Spain: Formatex publs; 2011. p. 520–29.Google Scholar
  26. Orsi RO, Fernandes A, Bankova V, Sforcin JM. The effects of Brazilian and Bulgarian propolis in vitro against Salmonella typhi and their synergism with antibiotics acting on the ribosome. Nat Prod Res. 2012;26(5):430–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Krol W, Scheller S, Shani J, Piets G, Czuba Z. Synergistic effect of ethanolic extract of propolis and antibiotics on the growth of Staphylococcus aureus. Drug Res. 1993;43:607–9.Google Scholar
  28. Shamim A, Shamim A, Hussain B. Study of biochemical changes and elevated levels of enzymes in Salmonella typhi infected patients in Pakistani population. Int J Bioautomation. 2012;16(1):33–42.Google Scholar
  29. Tortora G, Bianco R, Daniele G. Strategies for multiple signalling inhibition. J Chemother. 2004;4:41–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Majiene D, Macioniene I, Kursvietiene L, Bernatoniene J, Davalgiene J, Lazauskas R, Savickas O. The effect of propolis on microbial vitality and oxygen consumption. J Med Plant Res. 2010;4(10):953–8.Google Scholar
  31. Hu F, Hepburn HR, Yinghua L, Chen M, Eradloff SE, Daya S. Effects of ethanol and water extracts of propolis (bee glue) on acute inflammatory animal models. J Ethnopharmacol. 2005;100:276–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Suja SR, Latha PG, Pushpangandan P, Rajasekhara S. Evaluation of hepatoprotective effects of Helminthostachys zeylanica (L) Hook against carbon tetrachloride induced liver damage in wistar rats. J Ethnopharmacol. 2004;92:61–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kujumgiev A, Tsvetkova I, Serkedjieva Y, Bankova VS, Christov R, Popov S. Antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activity of propolis of different geographic origin. J Ethnopharmacol. 1999;64:235–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Song YS, Park EH, Hur GM, Ryu YS, Lee JY, Kim YM, Jin C. Caffeic acid phenethyl ester inhibits nitric oxide synthase gene expression and enzyme activity. Cancer Lett. 2002;175:53–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Fadillioglu E, Ortas E, Erdogen H, Yagmurca M, Sogut S, Ucar M, Irmak MK. Protective effect of caffeic acid phenethyl ester on doxorubicin- induced cardio toxicity in rats. J Appl Toxicol. 2004;24:47–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Newairy AS, Salama AF, Hussien HM, Yousef M. Propolis alleviates aluminium-induced lipid peroxidation and biochemical parameters in male rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2009;47:1093–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nirala S, Bhadauria M. Propolis reverses acetaminophen induced acute hepatorenal alterations: A biochemical and histopathological approach. Arch Pharm Res. 2008;31(4):451–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gomaa MS, Alla MAA, Sameer MM. The possible protective effect of propolis (bee glue) on cypermethrin induced hepatotoxicity in adult albino rats. Mansoura J Forensic Med Clin Toxicol. 2011;19(1):17–32.Google Scholar
  39. Etim OE, Ekaidem IS, Akpan EJ, Usoh IF, Akpan HD. Effects of quinine treatment on some indices of protein metabolism in Plasmodium falciparum infected human subjects. Acta Pharm Sci. 2009;51:21–6.Google Scholar
  40. Ozen S, Akyol O, Iraz M, Sogut S, Ozugurlu F, Ozyurt H, et al. Role of caffeic acid phenethyl ester, an active component of propolis, against cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. J Appl Toxicol. 2004;24:27–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Bhadauria M, Nirala SK, Shukla S. Multiple treatment of propolis extract ameliorates carbon tetrachloride induced liver injury in rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46(8):2703–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Promise N, Agomuo EN, Uloneme GC, Egwurugwu JN, Omeh YN, Nwakwuo GC. Effect of Phyllanthus amarus leaf extract on alterations of haematological parameters in Salmonella typhi infected wistar albino rats. Scientific Res Essays. 2014;9(1):7–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Abro AH, Abdou AM, Gangwani JL, Ustadi AM, Younis NJ, Hussaini HS. Hematological and biochemical changes in typhoid fever. Pak J Med Sci. 2009;25(2):166–71.Google Scholar
  44. Gupta RP, Verma PC, Chaturvedi GC. Experimental salmonellosis in guinea pigs: haematological and biochemical studies. Vet Res Commun. 1999;23:415–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kumar KBH, Kuttan R. Chemopreventive activity of an extract of Phyllanthus amarus against cyclophosphamide induced toxicity in mice. Phytomed. 2005;7:494–500.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Dangana A, Ajobiewe J, Nuhu A. Haematological changes associated with Salmonella typhi and Salmonella paratyphi in humans. Int J Biomed Health Sci. 2010;6:219–22.Google Scholar
  47. Youdim KA, Shukitt-Hale B, MacKinnon S, Kalt W, Joseph JA. Polyphenolics enhance red blood cell resistance to oxidative stress: In vitro and in vivo. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000;1523:117–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kaur R, Kumar NR, Harjai K. Phytochemical analysis of different extracts of bee pollen. Int J Pharma Biol Res. 2013;4(3):65–8.Google Scholar
  49. Mirzoeva OK, Grishanin RN, Caider PC. Antimicrobial action of propolis and some of its components: the effects on growth, membrane potential and motility of bacteria. Microbial Res. 1997;152:239–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Nnalue NA, Shnyra A, Hultenby K, Lindberg AA. Salmonella choleraesuis and Salmonella typhimurium associated with liver cells after intravenous inoculation of rats are localized mainly in Kupffer cells and multiply intracellularly. Infect Immun. 1992;60:2758–60.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Everest P, Roberts M, Dougan G. Susceptibility to Salmonella typhimurium infection and effectiveness of vaccination in mice deficient in the tumor necrosis factor alpha p55 receptor. Infect Immun. 1998;66(7):3355–64.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. El-Mawla AMAA, Osman HEH. Role of propolis in improving the histological and ultrastructural changes of liver after treatment with tamoxifen. Spatula DD. 2012;2(1):35–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Brown DE, Mc Coy MW, Piloneita MC, Nix RN, Detweile CS. Chronic murine typhoid fever is a natural model of secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. PLoS One. 2010;5(2):1–11.Google Scholar
  54. Ogeturk M, Kus I, Colakoglu N, Zarasiz I, Iihan N, Sarsilmaz M. Caffeic acid phenethyl ester protects kidneys against carbon tetrachloride toxicity in rats. J Ethnopharmacol. 2005;97(2):273–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kalia P, Kumar NR, Harjai K. Studies on the effect of ethanolic extract of propolis in BALB/c mice. J Appl Nat Sci. 2014;6(2):638–43.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement